Calcutta HC: In Framing Arbitration Agreement Words Used Must be Certain, Definite  ||  J&K HC: Can’t Evaluate Performance of Employee When on Sanctioned Leave During Covid  ||  Kerala HC: Public Paying Toll Fees Casts Responsibility on NHAI to Ensure Smooth Traffic  ||  Calc. HC: Writ Court Rejecting Claims Over Disputed Issues Doesn’t Bar Arbitration if Clause Exists  ||  Gujarat HC Notifies Revised SOP for Virtual/Hybrid Hearing of Cases  ||  Kerala HC: Mere Assessment of Mental Illness by Referring to Mental Health Board Won’t Serve Purpose  ||  Bom. HC Upholds Validity of 7th proviso inserted in S. 2(b) of Maharashtra Entertainments Duty Act  ||  SC to Suspend Operation of Committee Under UP Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025  ||  SC Recalls Direction to Remove Allahabad HC Judge from Criminal Jurisdiction after CJI’s Request  ||  Supreme Court: Enforcement Directorate Cannot Act Like a "Crook"    

Maha Laxmi Hosiery vs. Govind Singh and Ors. - (High Court of Delhi) (06 Jun 2022)

In proceedings before the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure and Evidence Act are not applicable

MANU/DE/2111/2022

Labour and Industrial

The Appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 seeking setting aside of the order/judgment passed by the learned Commissioner, Employee Compensation. The learned Commissioner, while passing the impugned order allowed the claim petition of the workman and awarded him compensation of Rs.2,87,136 alongwith interest @ 12% from 24.04.2008 till deposit.

In view of the fact that the statement of the workman is supported by co-workman-Rakesh Sharma, as well as reports of the (i) Labour Inspector, (ii) Inspector of Factories and (iii) Deputy Director, ESIC, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Commissioner rightly reached at the conclusion that respondent No.1/workman was working with the firm(s)/management in question at the time of accident and that the accident occurred during the course of his employment on 24.03.2008.

Although the appellant has raised a contention that the reports were not proved by the concerned scribe, this Court deems it apposite to refer in this regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in Om Prakash Batish v. Ranjit alias Ranbir Kaur and Others, wherein it was held that in proceedings before the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure and Evidence Act are not applicable. The Commissioner can lay down his own procedures and for the purpose of arriving at the truth, rely upon such documents which are produced before it. Respondent No.1/workman was able to establish his case before the learned Commissioner. Appeal dismissed.

Tags : COMPENSATION   GRANT   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved